I find the phrasing of this comment somewhat disingenuous, I understand what he is trying to say but to compare creditors and depositors using the term bailout is misleading as far as I am concerned. Protecting depositors is just giving back what is rightfully theirs, bailing out banks, developers, etc., is just that, saving them from the consequences of their ill-thought out decisions.
On his point of NAMA chasing developers for debt, the lack of transparency involved means that I can have no faith that this will happen.
But it is absolutely guaranteed that they will overpay for the loans. If they weren’t going to overpay, what would all ths talk about paying “longterm economic value” as oppose to current market value be?
Anything paid above the current market value (no matter how much of a “discount” it is to book value or how realsitic the “longterm economic value” projection is) constitutes an overpayment.
How do you mean, are you referring to the fact that prices are still falling?
Assuming you are, you are of course correct that we could still be overpaying for the assets even if we buy at today’s prices. But i was under the impression that time was of the essence and that all we could honestly do is get the best possible value for the taxpayer on the day of purchase.